James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)
- Thread starter chrisspringob
- Start date
So what is the acceptable budget cut-off for seeing a "car crash comedy" from 1980? Is $30M an across-the-board number, or do you have a matrix of movie genre vs. dollars spent? Also, do you adjust for inflation based on the CPI or average ticket price? I ask because I want to be sure that I am a conscientious movie-goer.
Well, I stayed out of this for awhile so I could really think about my opinion of the movie without anyone's other opinions influencing mine.
In the end, I could only call it an average movie, and that's where I cast my vote. It was a tale of two extremes, in my opinion: absolutely excellent visual effects and production values--the first time, I think, that CGI and live action were ever blended that effectively, and where the motions of the various CGI characters looked close to lifelike. And as a 3D movie, it was a real treat for the eyes.
That said, though, if not for the 3D aspect--there would have been nothing special about this movie, no reason to bother going to see it in the theater. The dialogue was unbelievably wooden--very poorly-written and cliche-filled, and there was no complexity to both sides. Aside from a few rebel humans, who basically became enlightened by absorbing Na'vi culture, it was a simple matter of humans = evil and aliens = good. Worse, except for Sully and one other woman, it was also a case of military = evil and scientist = good. The 21st-century political messages were also incredibly heavy-handed and bordered on insulting.
Again...no nuance. If you want to see it done RIGHT, look at the Cardassian-Bajoran conflict on DS9. You have your surface right-and-wrong, absolutely (the Occupation was flat-out WRONG and the Dukats and Darhe'els completely unjustified in what they did), and yet you have the complexities, the questions as to whether what the good guys are doing is right as well as the bad guys (the Tahna Los types, and so on: if you become what you hate, do you lose your moral high ground?). Even in a movie, especially one with a length like Avatar's, this could've been done.
Instead, the plot we GOT was essentially a rehash of FernGully (for kids, but also with a serious whack-you-over-the-head political message), right down to the whole "turning into fairies" and "stop the evil tree-killers" stuff. Pretty uncreative in that regard, if you ask me.
The opportunity for a lot of worldbuilding information was also missed, though we got some very tantalizing glimpses. We never even learned specifics like WHAT it was about the Pandoran atmosphere that was dangerous...simple things that should've been mentioned but weren't.
So, in the end, I can only award an "average" rating to this movie, which I come up with by averaging "excellent" effects with abysmally "poor" writing.
In the end, I could only call it an average movie, and that's where I cast my vote. It was a tale of two extremes, in my opinion: absolutely excellent visual effects and production values--the first time, I think, that CGI and live action were ever blended that effectively, and where the motions of the various CGI characters looked close to lifelike. And as a 3D movie, it was a real treat for the eyes.
That said, though, if not for the 3D aspect--there would have been nothing special about this movie, no reason to bother going to see it in the theater. The dialogue was unbelievably wooden--very poorly-written and cliche-filled, and there was no complexity to both sides. Aside from a few rebel humans, who basically became enlightened by absorbing Na'vi culture, it was a simple matter of humans = evil and aliens = good. Worse, except for Sully and one other woman, it was also a case of military = evil and scientist = good. The 21st-century political messages were also incredibly heavy-handed and bordered on insulting.
Again...no nuance. If you want to see it done RIGHT, look at the Cardassian-Bajoran conflict on DS9. You have your surface right-and-wrong, absolutely (the Occupation was flat-out WRONG and the Dukats and Darhe'els completely unjustified in what they did), and yet you have the complexities, the questions as to whether what the good guys are doing is right as well as the bad guys (the Tahna Los types, and so on: if you become what you hate, do you lose your moral high ground?). Even in a movie, especially one with a length like Avatar's, this could've been done.
Instead, the plot we GOT was essentially a rehash of FernGully (for kids, but also with a serious whack-you-over-the-head political message), right down to the whole "turning into fairies" and "stop the evil tree-killers" stuff. Pretty uncreative in that regard, if you ask me.
The opportunity for a lot of worldbuilding information was also missed, though we got some very tantalizing glimpses. We never even learned specifics like WHAT it was about the Pandoran atmosphere that was dangerous...simple things that should've been mentioned but weren't.
So, in the end, I can only award an "average" rating to this movie, which I come up with by averaging "excellent" effects with abysmally "poor" writing.
God, please no. People who want that kind of kitschy pooh-bah should look it up in a book or background material or something; if a movie story can be told without it, it should be - because there's no real reason for any of the people supposedly living the story (the characters) to discuss it. And Cameron's intuitive understanding of that as a writer (the studio even wanted more explanation of what "unobtainium" was than he'd allow) is one more reason that this movie can entertain and move tens of millions of people all over the world while DS9 is a show that almost no one other than trekkies have ever seen.
Hmmm, I see your point there. As I said, I loved the film, but I'll certainly give you that one. Yes, I can see how that might have played as rather insulting and simplistic.
Actually CALLING it "unobtainium," in addition to not bothering to explain it even as well as we've had dilithium explained--that came off as an insult to the intelligence of the audience, frankly.
And since when has box office success actually equated to quality?
It DID come off as insulting. Even worse when you put Quartrich's stereotypical (and ridiculous, incorrect-sounding) Southern accent into the mix...now we have "Southerners are stupid" AND "military people are stupid" all rolled into one! The military's like any other group...a mixed bag. Contrary to what some people think, they are NOT all about destroying the brains of their recruits and volunteers.
And since when has box office success actually equated to quality?
It DID come off as insulting. Even worse when you put Quartrich's stereotypical (and ridiculous, incorrect-sounding) Southern accent into the mix...now we have "Southerners are stupid" AND "military people are stupid" all rolled into one! The military's like any other group...a mixed bag. Contrary to what some people think, they are NOT all about destroying the brains of their recruits and volunteers.
Probably because I'm not American, I missed the accent. But yes, I can certainly see how someone- particularly an American whose family has strong ties to the military- would be insulted.
Hmm, I didn't see it as human=bad, Na'vi=good at all, but I appear to be in the minority on that view.
Was it unobtainium in the film, or did the slick corporate guy call it unobtainium?
There is a difference. (I have not read the written material, however) I believe the slick corporate guy was using a colloquialism to describe the material. When I heard the term used, I was amused. After the movie ended I remarked to my moviegoing companion that I appreciated the use of the word unobtainium as opposed to some other word like "positronic quantum deuterium" or other technobabble.
Hmm, I didn't see it as human=bad, Na'vi=good at all, but I appear to be in the minority on that view.
Oh there's no doubt the Man was bad in Avatar. It's the idea that only the Man would make it to another planet. That destroying a perfectly productive habitat when their own is supposedly 'dying' is the only thing on their minds. That in the future any human let alone an entire colony would consider aboriginal genocide a reasonable course of action to make money, and furthermore get the okay to carry it out.
I believe it is indeed named "unobtainium" within the context of the film. It's its actual name. Whether in-universe it was named as a joke, I don't know.
It's unobtainium, which is quite funny and not at all a bother - trekkies have spent too much time explaining away "dilithium" as a name. And BTW, absolutely no meaningful on-screen explanation of what dilithium is or does was offered for decades. It's just something they "channeled power" through.
This stuff is all mcguffin, and Cameron rightly thumbs his nose at it (while actually having worked out a lot of this in more credible detail behind the scenes than Trek managed in four decades). The tiny minority of viewers who want to know that unobtainium is an absolutely awesome naturally-occurring superconductor that framitz with the whatznitz can look it up - wanting that explanation doesn't make them smart and cutting it out of a story doesn't dumb the story down one whit.
It's like dropping a viewer into the middle of combat in a future war story and then spending time explaining the issues over which the sides are fighting and justifying the POV of the protagonists in terms that make them the "good guys" - if you get off on that, fine. However, human beings have been killing one another forever and in the vast majority of cases the two sides are pretty well-matched morally with respect to everything other than who's trying to steal from whom this time around, and being asked to identify with the guy whose POV the camera is adopting while the bullets fly in its direction is really more than enough. Having your viewpoint characters do better things than we see the adversaries do is all that's important, without explanation.
Modern movies and TV love the cool characters.
The movie has a lot of love for Stephen Lang's character.
It has a lot for Michelle Rodriguez's character.
But it doesn't have that much for Sigourney Weaver's character, either, and very little for any of the other scientists.
Plus of course, Sully, the hero, is military.
Military=cool and scientist=geek in Avatar, just as people generally regard it.
Invader=evil and defender=good is the real problem for people in my opinion.
The movie has a lot of love for Stephen Lang's character.
It has a lot for Michelle Rodriguez's character.
But it doesn't have that much for Sigourney Weaver's character, either, and very little for any of the other scientists.
Plus of course, Sully, the hero, is military.
Military=cool and scientist=geek in Avatar, just as people generally regard it.
Invader=evil and defender=good is the real problem for people in my opinion.
I'm not having a problem with that, but when you scan a lot of the criticism on line and especially some of the political blogs you quickly find that in contemporary America it is a problem.
The fact that Quarritch mocks the "religious motivations" of the Na'vi also seems to upset people, as does the use of phrases like "shock and awe" to describe the tactics of the corporate soldiers.
Some of what's obvious but unsaid about Jake is that his own way of thinking about himself and his military experiences - ie, "I could pass any test" and his essential fitness to function as a member of a group or unit rather than remain an observer and/or outsider - make him a much better psychological fit to be accepted by the clannish Na'vi and to understand them than that of the essentially anthropological perspective of the scientists.
Jake is not a rebel or a "loner" or someone who resents what's happened to him as a result of his military service or seems to envy those of higher status or (putatively) more intelligence than he possesses. He doesn't have much of a chip on his shoulder (especially considering the way Grace initially treats him) and is comfortable thinking about either the soldiers or the scientists as "the team." The only glimmer of real resentment or anger we see him display is at his brother's useless death as an apparent victim of street crime.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
It may amuse you, but profligate spending on a lightweight film is seriously detrimental to the ART of filmmaking. Those kind of overthetop pictures helped drive low-budget theatrical features into near-zero budgets and/or to home cable -- neither of which much benefitted the filmmakers.
30 mil for APOCALYPSE NOW? Yeah, fuck yeah. For BB? For ANY Landis movie of the era? I'd rather operate soup kitchens on the dough.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I haven't been to a professional sporting event since 1978 or watched one on TV since shortly thereafter, mainly because I object to the salaries involved (scariness of some fans is also a contributing factor -- same reason I've spent well under 200 minutes at sci-fi conventions since 1977.)
I don't think I have hurt the game much with that stance, but I'm okay with it anyway.
Why?
I really don't understand why people love it so much. The plot, what little there was of it, was ludicrous. The characters were vapid and silly. The story line was predictable but also insipid. The visuals were amazing for the most part but some where just so silly I thought I was watching a Saturday Morning cartoon. I found this movie insulting as a viewer. I mean if you like the idea of Dances With Wolves rapping Fergully it's your movie. If this were a low-budget flick I could be a little more understand of bad movie, but all these years and millions of dollars for a crappy movie? What was likable about it?
But hey, I am glad it has made billions of dollars. Good for the studio, too bad it was on that waste of film.
I really don't understand why people love it so much. The plot, what little there was of it, was ludicrous. The characters were vapid and silly. The story line was predictable but also insipid. The visuals were amazing for the most part but some where just so silly I thought I was watching a Saturday Morning cartoon. I found this movie insulting as a viewer. I mean if you like the idea of Dances With Wolves rapping Fergully it's your movie. If this were a low-budget flick I could be a little more understand of bad movie, but all these years and millions of dollars for a crappy movie? What was likable about it?
But hey, I am glad it has made billions of dollars. Good for the studio, too bad it was on that waste of film.